Poor Theology - God Told Me / You're Arguing With God

[tango]

It seems a great way to shut down a discussion, doesn't it?

"God told me that ..." or "the Spirit revealed this to me" or some such. How do you argue with God, or with the Spirit? After all, if you disagree you're not arguing with the person in front of you, you're arguing with God himself. And who wants to come up against God and defy what he says?

But let's back up a minute. The Bible calls us to test all things, so the fact someone claims God told them something doesn't actually mean God told them anything of the sort. How do we know whether God really told them, whether God was speaking at all, or whether they merely felt so strongly they were right they were sure God was telling them. Perhaps they just made it up because they didn't want to give up their precious beliefs so they claimed God told them they were right. Of course because "God told them" they don't feel any need to test it because how could God get it wrong? God isn't in the business of getting stuff wrong.

Ultimately it comes down to the scope of what they are claiming. For the sake of an example, if they believe that God told them to stop drinking beer they are free to stop drinking beer if they so choose. They are not free to demand that anyone else stops drinking beer based on their own personal conviction. If they want to tell others to follow what they claim God told them then they should expect to be tested. If they want to say to me that God told them what I'm supposed to be doing, and what I'm apparently supposed to be doing represents a huge change to my lifestyle, they will be tested until I am satisfied what they say comes from God. It's not as if God can't send someone else to confirm their message if he is truly expecting me to turn my life upside down.

Paul hailed the Bereans for "searching the Scriptures daily" to find out whether his teaching was sound. If Paul's teachings needed to be scrutinised, how much more do our modern-day teachers need to be scrutinised. After all, if it aligns with Scripture it will pass Scriptural testing and if it doesn't then we need to reject it.

 

[onlyme]

It seems a great way to shut down a discussion, doesn't it?

"God told me that ..." or "the Spirit revealed this to me" or some such. How do you argue with God, or with the Spirit? After all, if you disagree you're not arguing with the person in front of you, you're arguing with God himself. And who wants to come up against God and defy what he says?

But let's back up a minute. The Bible calls us to test all things, so the fact someone claims God told them something doesn't actually mean God told them anything of the sort. How do we know whether God really told them, whether God was speaking at all, or whether they merely felt so strongly they were right they were sure God was telling them. Perhaps they just made it up because they didn't want to give up their precious beliefs so they claimed God told them they were right. Of course because "God told them" they don't feel any need to test it because how could God get it wrong? God isn't in the business of getting stuff wrong.

Ultimately it comes down to the scope of what they are claiming. For the sake of an example, if they believe that God told them to stop drinking beer they are free to stop drinking beer if they so choose. They are not free to demand that anyone else stops drinking beer based on their own personal conviction. If they want to tell others to follow what they claim God told them then they should expect to be tested. If they want to say to me that God told them what I'm supposed to be doing, and what I'm apparently supposed to be doing represents a huge change to my lifestyle, they will be tested until I am satisfied what they say comes from God. It's not as if God can't send someone else to confirm their message if he is truly expecting me to turn my life upside down.

Paul hailed the Bereans for "searching the Scriptures daily" to find out whether his teaching was sound. If Paul's teachings needed to be scrutinised, how much more do our modern-day teachers need to be scrutinised. After all, if it aligns with Scripture it will pass Scriptural testing and if it doesn't then we need to reject it.

There is indeed a vast difference between quoting 'Thus saith the Lord' from Scripture, and 'Thus saith Joe'...

 

[psalms 91]

I also think ones track record of hearing from God enters in as well.

 

[tango]

I also think ones track record of hearing from God enters in as well.

That's a good point, although someone presenting a "word from God" can't expect whatever track record they may have elsewhere to count for anything among people who don't know them.

 

[psalms 91]

I have heard evangelists that have testimonies from people in order to build the faith of where they are ministering.

 

[tango]

I have heard evangelists that have testimonies from people in order to build the faith of where they are ministering.

Which is great, as long as you trust the evangelist not to embellish. I've heard lots of people talk of great miracles but they always seemed to happen to someone else, somewhere else, in a way that can't be verified. When I see someone I know healed, or talk to someone I know personally testify of a miracle, I'm more likely to believe it. When it's just some guy on a stage talking of the endless miracles he witnessed elsewhere but that never seem to happen here, excuse me for being a little suspicious.

ETA: It's all very well to talk of "building the faith" but if people truly believe that God literally spoke the universe into being why do they need a third-hand account of something wondrous that happened somewhere else, to someone else, to believe that God can do mighty things?

 

[psalms 91]

Actually, any I have known have written testimonies that people are free to ask to examine

 

[tango]

Actually, any I have known have written testimonies that people are free to ask to examine

That's at least a step in the right direction. It still pales against the early church and the way things spread locally and could be verified locally.

When the lame beggar was healed at the Beautiful Gate in Acts 3 everybody in the area would have known the man, everybody would have seen that he was healed, so there would be no doubt that something Very Unusual had happened. It's a far cry from what some speakers do, involving a few "words of knowledge" that are sufficiently vague that simple probability dictates there's a very high chance of at least one or two people in the room matching what they say.

It's like the "prophets" who speak vague words and publish them sufficiently widely that it's reasonable to assume that some people will agree that the words are a perfect match. One such "prophecy" I read included the prediction that "bank accounts will change, investments will pay off" - this stunning "revelation" appeared shortly before Christmas one year. Bank accounts changing before Christmas? Wow, who could have seen that one coming? Investments paying off? That's kind of what investments do, at least for some people. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't.

I'm tempted to offer a few "prophecies" of my own that are equally insightful and just as predictable. I predict that in the next three days some cats will chase mice, some dogs will bark like a stuck record, and some cows will leave a nasty mess in a field.

 

[psalms 91]

That's at least a step in the right direction. It still pales against the early church and the way things spread locally and could be verified locally.

When the lame beggar was healed at the Beautiful Gate in Acts 3 everybody in the area would have known the man, everybody would have seen that he was healed, so there would be no doubt that something Very Unusual had happened. It's a far cry from what some speakers do, involving a few "words of knowledge" that are sufficiently vague that simple probability dictates there's a very high chance of at least one or two people in the room matching what they say.

It's like the "prophets" who speak vague words and publish them sufficiently widely that it's reasonable to assume that some people will agree that the words are a perfect match. One such "prophecy" I read included the prediction that "bank accounts will change, investments will pay off" - this stunning "revelation" appeared shortly before Christmas one year. Bank accounts changing before Christmas? Wow, who could have seen that one coming? Investments paying off? That's kind of what investments do, at least for some people. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't.

I'm tempted to offer a few "prophecies" of my own that are equally insightful and just as predictable. I predict that in the next three days some cats will chase mice, some dogs will bark like a stuck record, and some cows will leave a nasty mess in a field.

While I understand what you are saying, if you need locals to testify and see the truth then what about Daniel or Revelation? No one at that time could have testified to the truth of it except by God showing them. Even today Revelation is a very misunderstood book

 

[Josiah]

PRIDE.... I think that is the most common appeal in bad theology.....

Individuals (persons, denominations, sects, cults) insisting that SELF is smarter than God and has been individually appointed by God to "make sense" out of the "mess He left us in Scripture." It is an appeal to the BRAIN of SELF who - being SO smart and/or the SOLE one God leads and teachers - will clear things up for God who frankly did a really bad (or just inadequate) job of revealing things to us.

In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "the heart of all heresy is the unwillingness to shut up." Pride.... individualism....

My Lutheran pastor often comments that HUMILITY is the basis of all good theology. That includes the humility to SHUT UP, to let GOD have the last word, to admit "I don't know," to let things stand as Scripture states. And the humility to embrace that Scripture wasn't given to ME exclusively and individually (whether ME is a person or church or deneomination or sect or cult), the Holy Spirit doesn't just lead ME, the church is not ME.

Ironically, Christianity has often been dominated with enormous, unmitigated, self-glorifying, power-grabbing PRIDE..... humility/community have not been hallmarks. This point was central as to why I left the RCC.



My view...


- Josiah

 

[onlyme]

There is a huge difference between, 'Thus saith the Lord', from Scripture, and 'Thus saith Fred'.

 

[Josiah]

There is a huge difference between, 'Thus saith the Lord', from Scripture, and 'Thus saith Fred'.

When "Fred" equates the two (but only if FRED is speaking), then Houston - we've got a problem. Whether "Fred" is the individual RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or the Pope or Tammy Fay Baker or.....

 

[onlyme]

When "Fred" equates the two (but only if FRED is speaking), then Houston - we've got a problem. Whether "Fred" is the individual RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or the Pope or Tammy Fay Baker or.....

You know the rhyme, paraphrasing a hymn:

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see,
Especially what's put there by you and by me."

 

[MoreCoffee]

When "Fred" equates the two (but only if FRED is speaking), then Houston - we've got a problem. Whether "Fred" is the individual RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or the Pope or Tammy Fay Baker or.....

... or Martin Luther?

 

[Josiah]

... or Martin Luther?

Nope. He was excommunicated because he rejected the epistemology that if self alone (in that case, the RCC) declares that whatever self alone says just be swallowed whole cuz self alone says it (but only if self is the RCC, the RCC insisted and insists). See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RCC itself # 87. Then search all the rest of your days on Earth and in Purgatory to see the same thing in Luther's Catechism... you won't. You can find it in the early insistences of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.... you can it in every "cult" known to me..... you can find it most boldly in the RCC... but nope, not in Lutheranism (if I'm wrong, just quote the statement in the Lutheran Confessions).



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope. ...

- Josiah

So Martin Luther is/was infallible?

 

[Josiah]

So Martin Luther is/was infallible?

Nope, never claimed to be. But the RCC itself so claims such for it itself alone.... indeed, that when IT ITSELF exclusively speaks, God Himself is (and must agree with IT in order to not be wrong). See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RCC itself, # 87. It is the very thing this thread condemns. Sure, the early LDS said the same thing.... sure, we find much the same in virtually all cults today, but nowhere is this more bold, more central than in the RC Denomination. Again, see CCC 87. And of course, note that you cannot find the same claim in the Catechism of ANY other denomination (just yours)... indeed, even if you go to the "cults," you can't find it so boldly stated as by the RCC.

See my responses to the thread in my post above. Yes, it was one of the reasons I left the RC Denomination.


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope, never claimed to be. ...


- Josiah

Good.

 

[Josiah]

Nope, never claimed to be. But the RCC itself so claims such for it itself alone, uniquely, individually.... indeed, that when IT ITSELF exclusively speaks, God Himself is (and must agree with IT in order to not be wrong). See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RCC itself, # 87. It is the very thing this thread condemns. Sure, the early LDS said the same thing.... sure, we find much the same in virtually all cults today, but nowhere is this more bold, more central than in the RC Denomination. Again, see CCC 87. And of course, note that you cannot find the same claim in the Catechism of ANY other denomination (just yours)... indeed, even if you go to the "cults," you can't find it so boldly stated as by the RCC.


.

Good.

okay




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good.

okay

My "Good" applied only the the acknowledgement that Martin Luther was not and is not infallible. The rest of the comments in your earlier post were gratuitous insults hurled at the Catholic Church and I offer no approval and no commendation for that. It's bad taste and inaccurate commentary of no value to me.